What If: Saddam uses gas against Israel in 1991?

[James G]

Despite Israel not being part of the Coalition, Israel was attacked by Saddam in 1991 during Desert Storm. Iraq did have chemical weapons. Let us say, an idiotic idea of this somehow bringing victory enters Saddam's head and so he uses chemical-filled Scud's against Israel.

The first answer is... Israel nukes Iraq. Okay, so how and where? Baghdad getting a bucket of sunshine breakfast while Bush 41 is US president ain't happening: I believe that he would have stopped that. Such an attack does Israel no good either. So... nuclear of conventional Israeli attacks in the desert against suspected Scud sites?

Does the coalition fall apart just as Saddam wanted? What do other Arab nations do? What do the Western European partners do? The coalition had worldwide members. Is Israel doomed forever to be hated for using nukes - if it does, even in response - or does the world roundly agree that Israel had no choice?

[raunchel]

It really depends on a few things. The first of course is how bad the chemical attacks are. If you have thousands of deaths, Israel has carte blanche, basically. Sure, you'll have protests from the Arab countries, but that's more for public consumption than serious. I however don't see the Israelis going for nuking Baghdad or the like. They're not genocidal maniacs. But I really wouldn't want to be on a military base or the like.

This would also make stopping with Kuwait impossible for Bush, meaning that whatever happens, Saddam is gone.

[Deleted]

If Saddam uses WMD's against Israel, I think they really would go nuclear, and nobody would give two fucks about it either. Saddam brought it on, he'll have to pay the price.

Or maybe not. I don't know.

[lordroel]

Apr 5, 2018 20:54:07 GMT @theavalonproject said:

If Saddam uses WMD's against Israel, I think they really would go nuclear, and nobody would give two fucks about it either. Saddam brought it on, he'll have to pay the price.

Or maybe not. I don't know.

They United States would act also.

[James G]

Apr 5, 2018 20:54:06 GMT raunchel said:

It really depends on a few things. The first of course is how bad the chemical attacks are. If you have thousands of deaths, Israel has carte blanche, basically. Sure, you'll have protests from the Arab countries, but that's more for public consumption than serious. I however don't see the Israelis going for nuking Baghdad or the like. They're not genocidal maniacs. But I really wouldn't want to be on a military base or the like.

This would also make stopping with Kuwait impossible for Bush, meaning that whatever happens, Saddam is gone.

Saddam would certainly be gone. Mossad would certainly get revenge if Israeli jets don't.

Apr 5, 2018 20:54:07 GMT @theavalonproject said:

If Saddam uses WMD's against Israel, I think they really would go nuclear, and nobody would give two fucks about it either. Saddam brought it on, he'll have to pay the price.

Or maybe not. I don't know.

I agree they almost certainly would use nuclear weapons but I do think the world would care and react negatively.

Apr 5, 2018 21:03:00 GMT lordroel said:

They United States would act also.

Certainly they would.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2018 21:44:38 GMT James G said:

Apr 5, 2018 20:54:06 GMT raunchel said:

It really depends on a few things. The first of course is how bad the chemical attacks are. If you have thousands of deaths, Israel has carte blanche, basically. Sure, you'll have protests from the Arab countries, but that's more for public consumption than serious. I however don't see the Israelis going for nuking Baghdad or the like. They're not genocidal maniacs. But I really wouldn't want to be on a military base or the like.

This would also make stopping with Kuwait impossible for Bush, meaning that whatever happens, Saddam is gone.

Saddam would certainly be gone. Mossad would certainly get revenge if Israeli jets don't.

Apr 5, 2018 20:54:07 GMT @theavalonproject said:

If Saddam uses WMD's against Israel, I think they really would go nuclear, and nobody would give two fucks about it either. Saddam brought it on, he'll have to pay the price.

Or maybe not. I don't know.

I agree they almost certainly would use nuclear weapons but I do think the world would care and react negatively.

Apr 5, 2018 21:03:00 GMT lordroel said:

They United States would act also.

Certainly they would.

Hmm. Maybe if it's an American nuke and not an Israeli one. Semantics means a LOT when you get right down to it in the Middle East.

[James G]

Apr 5, 2018 21:46:48 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Apr 5, 2018 21:44:38 GMT James G said:

Saddam would certainly be gone. Mossad would certainly get revenge if Israeli jets don't.




I agree they almost certainly would use nuclear weapons but I do think the world would care and react negatively.


Certainly they would.

Hmm. Maybe if it's an American nuke and not an Israeli one. Semantics means a LOT when you get right down to it in the Middle East.

That's an interesting point. A different way of looking at things.
The region has always been full of odd alliances and partnerships which look strange to outsiders but mean different things there.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2018 21:50:06 GMT James G said:

Apr 5, 2018 21:46:48 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Hmm. Maybe if it's an American nuke and not an Israeli one. Semantics means a LOT when you get right down to it in the Middle East.

That's an interesting point. A different way of looking at things.
The region has always been full of odd alliances and partnerships which look strange to outsiders but mean different things there.

Seriously, right? I can imagine the conversation between Bush and the Saudi leadership going something like this "Yes, Saddam's a bastard and yes, he deserves to be nuked but for the love of Allah and my subjects, don't use an Israeli nuke! They won't take it well at all!"

Considering that it was the posting of US soldiers on Saudi soil that pissed off Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 in the first place.

[James G]

Apr 5, 2018 22:05:33 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Apr 5, 2018 21:50:06 GMT James G said:

That's an interesting point. A different way of looking at things.
The region has always been full of odd alliances and partnerships which look strange to outsiders but mean different things there.

Seriously, right? I can imagine the conversation between Bush and the Saudi leadership going something like this "Yes, Saddam's a bastard and yes, he deserves to be nuked but for the love of Allah and my subjects, don't use an Israeli nuke! They won't take it well at all!"

Considering that it was the posting of US soldiers on Saudi soil that pissed off Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 in the first place.

Along that line, I'd imagine that for many years to come, Islamic terrorism would take a stronger form than it did after the Americans or Israelis had used nuclear weapons.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2018 22:20:45 GMT James G said:

Apr 5, 2018 22:05:33 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Seriously, right? I can imagine the conversation between Bush and the Saudi leadership going something like this "Yes, Saddam's a bastard and yes, he deserves to be nuked but for the love of Allah and my subjects, don't use an Israeli nuke! They won't take it well at all!"

Considering that it was the posting of US soldiers on Saudi soil that pissed off Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 in the first place.

Along that line, I'd imagine that for many years to come, Islamic terrorism would take a stronger form than it did after the Americans or Israelis had used nuclear weapons.

Possibly - or it scares them into not becoming terrorists. Especially if you phrase it like "This could happen to you if you fight us.". Or something like that.

[raunchel]

I'm still not certain about the certainty of using nuclear weapons. It really depends on how many innocents got hurt. Nukes still are a huge taboo.

But it will be much harder for Bush to keep Israel from attacking Iraq themselves, practically impossible even. I don't think that that would influence the Gulf nations, they all felt much too threatened by Saddam and if he uses chemical weapons against another country, one they know to have nuclear weapons, they will see him as even more of a threat and a rapid dog.

Of course, one possible reaction (if we want to go nuclear) is to have the Israelis react tp the first chemical attack with a warning strike on a military target in the desert, to prevent civilian casualties.

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2018 22:05:33 GMT @theavalonproject said:

Apr 5, 2018 21:50:06 GMT James G said:

That's an interesting point. A different way of looking at things.
The region has always been full of odd alliances and partnerships which look strange to outsiders but mean different things there.

Seriously, right? I can imagine the conversation between Bush and the Saudi leadership going something like this "Yes, Saddam's a bastard and yes, he deserves to be nuked but for the love of Allah and my subjects, don't use an Israeli nuke! They won't take it well at all!"

Considering that it was the posting of US soldiers on Saudi soil that pissed off Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 in the first place.

  Not really.  That was his excuse but he had already attacked American targets, including an earlier attempt at the twin towers long before that.  Note that also Al Quaeda also bitterly complained at the lack of western intervention in the Balkans and elsewhere.  Basically they were out to murder people bin Laden didn't like, in his twisted world view and would have used any excuse.

  The idea of Israel sitting back if the US uses a nuke instead of them is a possibility I hadn't considered.  Such an attack is unlikely to be against an urban centre but the question would then be what happens next?  If there are further gas attacks and especially if some land in Israeli urban areas the gloves could really come off.  I remember the phase being used at the time was "you don't gas Jews" and think both because of the threat to their citizens and the historical strings it would pull the reaction could be very nasty.

  Of course given how inaccurate the Scud's were there is the possibility of one hitting somewhere else.  An hit on the west bank could backfire badly let alone one coming down in Syria or Jordan.

[James G]

Apr 6, 2018 6:34:14 GMT raunchel said:

I'm still not certain about the certainty of using nuclear weapons. It really depends on how many innocents got hurt. Nukes still are a huge taboo.

But it will be much harder for Bush to keep Israel from attacking Iraq themselves, practically impossible even. I don't think that that would influence the Gulf nations, they all felt much too threatened by Saddam and if he uses chemical weapons against another country, one they know to have nuclear weapons, they will see him as even more of a threat and a rapid dog.

Of course, one possible reaction (if we want to go nuclear) is to have the Israelis react tp the first chemical attack with a warning strike on a military target in the desert, to prevent civilian casualties.

My thinking as that Israel would go that far. They certainly looked ready to in 1991.
But, as you say, there are many factors involved. Maybe the chemicals miss any urban areas and disperse over the countryside? Maybe they hit a city but only kill 10s rather than 1000s? There are so many variables.
I do think that a nuclear strike would be a warning shot type hit, maybe a big air or military base.

[raunchel]

Apr 6, 2018 18:25:57 GMT James G said:

Apr 6, 2018 6:34:14 GMT raunchel said:

I'm still not certain about the certainty of using nuclear weapons. It really depends on how many innocents got hurt. Nukes still are a huge taboo.

But it will be much harder for Bush to keep Israel from attacking Iraq themselves, practically impossible even. I don't think that that would influence the Gulf nations, they all felt much too threatened by Saddam and if he uses chemical weapons against another country, one they know to have nuclear weapons, they will see him as even more of a threat and a rapid dog.

Of course, one possible reaction (if we want to go nuclear) is to have the Israelis react tp the first chemical attack with a warning strike on a military target in the desert, to prevent civilian casualties.

My thinking as that Israel would go that far. They certainly looked ready to in 1991.
But, as you say, there are many factors involved. Maybe the chemicals miss any urban areas and disperse over the countryside? Maybe they hit a city but only kill 10s rather than 1000s? There are so many variables.
I do think that a nuclear strike would be a warning shot type hit, maybe a big air or military base.

Yes, if there are a few dozen dead, you will see some response but it won't be a nuking. There however will be very strong warnings to get them to stop right now. If there are thousands of deaths, I agree, there will be very hard retaliation.

[James G]

Apr 6, 2018 18:29:02 GMT raunchel said:

Apr 6, 2018 18:25:57 GMT James G said:

My thinking as that Israel would go that far. They certainly looked ready to in 1991.
But, as you say, there are many factors involved. Maybe the chemicals miss any urban areas and disperse over the countryside? Maybe they hit a city but only kill 10s rather than 1000s? There are so many variables.
I do think that a nuclear strike would be a warning shot type hit, maybe a big air or military base.

Yes, if there are a few dozen dead, you will see some response but it won't be a nuking. There however will be very strong warnings to get them to stop right now. If there are thousands of deaths, I agree, there will be very hard retaliation.

Radiation from any Israeli nuclear strike goes east,  I presume, and towards Iran. I'm sure they would be very happy at that in Tehran.